Corsairs and Cyber Pirates: Should We Consider Bringing Back Letters of Marque?

The Wall Street Journal recently published an article entitled A Maritime Solution for Cyber Piracy which grabbed my attention. The author, a lawyer who used to work for the Air Force, suggests we may want to look into the concept of letters of marque so as to shore-up the U.S.’s cyber-defences.

Such “letters of marque” (also called letters of permission or of commission) involved a license (permission) granted by the U.S. government empowering certain citizens or groups to participate directly to the defence of commerce or of the nation itself. Though common a few hundred years ago in Europe (and later around America), such permission largely disappeared in the 19th century, as countries acquired navies capable of policing sea lanes without having to resort of privateers to do so. For a time, though, the idea of “privateers” (or “corsairs”) sinking or capturing enemy (or pirate) ships in exchange for reward was fairly commonplace. Faced with security issues they could not deal with themselves, many countries compromised by asking private parties to do what they could not, often with the promise of a bounty or rewards to get the job done.

Recent high-profile cybersecurity incidents seem to indicate we may collectively be faced with a situation somewhat akin to that faced by the U.S. in the 19th century, at a time when the government was unable to itself deal with the nation’s security. Could it be that rampant cybercrime has brought about a similar situation? An argument to that effect can certainly be made.

Interestingly enough, the fact that the NSA is prohibited from watching domestic networks too closely may militate in favour of this idea, so as to fill the gap, so to speak. If the main watchdog cannot act once cyberpirates have penetrated targets in America, one might argue we need help that private parties may be especially well positioned to provide.

Given the growing threat of cyberpiracy, including to some important infrastructure (such as the pipeline recently shut down by a ransomware attack), the author argues that we may want to start looking at the concept of letters of marque. Given the apparent inability of the U.S. government to stop the threat, one might argue it may be time to try and incentive private citizens and businesses to report and go after cybercriminals.

Interesting idea, no doubt. One has to admit we definitely seem to be in need of a new set of solutions if we hope to manage to tackle the issues relating to cybersecurity in a proactive manner. Though I’m not sure how this may work in practice, I think it may indeed be time to start incentivizing private parties to help our collective efforts to thwart cybercriminals.

3D Printing Plans for Guns Back Online

The American media recently reported something that continues to be a major problem: 3D printing firearms or, more specifically, what to do about the fact that anyone can now purchase a 3D printer and start producing almost anything, including guns. Though it has huge potential, this relatively new technology causes a big headache for the U.S. and no doubt numerous other jurisdictions, Canada included.

The problem is what they call ghost guns (i.e., unregistered guns without so much as a serial number) and it stems from the combination of 3D printing and the online availability of plans to print gun parts. Although 3D printers are now relatively commonplace and cheap, the plans to replicate actual gun parts are another matter.

In 2015, an American court allowed the addition of 3D printing plans (for gun parts) to the “State Department’s Munitions List,” a list of things that can only be exported (or put online) with the U.S. government’s authorization. For a short while, publishing such plans online was illegal under American law. However, the ban was relatively short-lived, as litigation by one manufacturer lead the Trump administration to repeal its ban and (again) allow the online publication of such plans.

Since then, several American states have sued the federal government in an effort to get 3D printing parts blacklisted again, and get them yanked from the Web. This has led to a recent California appeals decision which concluded that the federal government had indeed the right to withdraw such plans from the Munitions List and, thus, that there is no reason for anyone at this point in time prohibiting anyone from publishing 3D printing plans for gun parts.

As one might guess, this ruling has a lot of people worried in the U.S., a jurisdiction already awash in firearms and now facing a new source of guns, this time by individuals creating firearms from the Internet, so to speak. In 2019, one third of all guns seized in the state of California were ghost guns—the problem is very real and far from being merely theoretical. Heck, we’re even starting to see this creeping-up in Canada, as demonstrated by this Alberta news story from last September.

Faced with the resurgence of this problem, many are already calling for the U.S. to legislate specifically to address the problem, and prohibit the online publishing or sharing of ghost-gun plans.

No doubt about it: 3D printing will continue to challenge how society deals with many issues, as more and more types of items become “printable,” including guns, armour and even houses. Hey, you can’t halt progress.